Why is everyone afraid of HIMARS more than "Grad"

There has been a lot of talk about this installation in recent months and they attribute incredible combat capabilities to it. With what

Is this MLRS different from its Russian counterparts? Is there an answer to this weapon? Discuss

Table of contents

  • Why is everyone talking about Hymars?
  • American MLRS
  • The difference between American MLRS and Russian
  • What about Russian counterparts

To describe the majority in a nutshellfighting in the NWO, these words will be "artillery warfare." On the one hand, this happens because reconnaissance drones and the latest ASUNO (artillery fire control system) are very developed today - you can accurately find out where the enemy is - and hit him, find out - and hit. Moreover, modern systems allow you to do this with high accuracy, the circular deviation is minimal even within distances.

Therefore, the conflict of 2022 perfectly revealed the potential of artillery, even if the barrels themselves are old Soviet or American howitzers of the 60s.

Tanks are another story.Due to the fact that the Armed Forces of Ukraine have plenty of funds to knock out these tanks, and, again, it is much more convenient for everyone to deploy high-precision artillery, armored vehicles have receded into secondary roles. Ukraine itself cannot get its hands on the latest NATO tanks, the only thing that has reached so far is about 250 Polish T-72s, which, moreover, need to be seriously modified before being thrown into battle, because these tanks have seriously outdated fire control systems. This means that the Armed Forces of Ukraine are not yet capable of serious offensive actions, at least according to open sources.

The work of D-20 howitzers. Despite all the novelties of artillery, it is this barrel that is the basis of the firepower of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, along with the lighter D-30

Why is everyone talking about Hymars?

We touched on the topics of MLRS on the eve of the events, but since thena lot has changed since then. To tell the truth, we greatly underestimated the American MLRS (MLRS) (not knowing the real capabilities of the GMLRS), and in general, they were little touched upon in the field of popular military equipment (this is not Abrams to slander with the state media). The weapon is complex, boring, for a real war, even in computer games it is rare (but Battlefield 4 fans will now begin to refute this), to be sure.

Read also

And reality showed the importance of this weapon, which greatly influenced the course of hostilities:

  • Pinpoint strikes forced the rear infrastructure to be moved further from the line of contact, increasing the logistical knee

  • Mobility of complexesHIMARSallows you to strike suddenly, it is unrealistic to organize a reliable “dome” of missile defense/air defense (about this in a separate article), it is almost impossible to somehow parry missiles of this system

Read also

MLRS Hurricane significantly influenced the birth of the US Army class MLRS

  • The same mobility allows you to quickly hide from a retaliatory strike and fall into cover, before the exact coordinates of the installation position are obtained and it becomes possible to hit it

  • In addition to military infrastructure, general-purpose infrastructure also rakes

For example, the Antonovsky bridge across the Dnieper, on which the supply of the group on the right bank near Kherson depends.

That is, we have before us some banal 20 launchersMLRS with a package for six 227 mm caliber missiles, and the consequences of their use made this weapon widely discussed. Although, honestly, this is not a new system, and generally not some kind of prohibitive high technology.

American MLRS

Historically, Americans have greatly underestimatedartillery after the Second World War, in comparison with the USSR. Even if this statement is not entirely substantiated, the number and variety of systems have developed clearly in favor of the social bloc.

M198 - the basis of the heavy artillery of the United States and a number of NATO countries after 1968, including the Armed Forces of Ukraine

Artillery was part of military doctrine.Due to the fact that there were almost no professional infantry in the draft armies (most countries until the 1980s), the main tactical decisions on breaking through the defense were decided by howitzers - a barrage of fire grinded down the enemy’s defenses to a few percent of the original number.

In the 1960s, the USSR created a 122-mm MLRSBM-21Grad, a direct descendant of the Katyushas.

Further more - the systemBM-27 Uragan, already with 220-mm rockets and 16 rockets in the installation. The range of the system was over 35 km, which blocked any artillery of that time. What did the Soviet army get in the end?

  • The ability to quickly turn around with a battery and print out a hundred missiles of one battery, with a cluster or high-explosive warhead

  • Volley from each pipe (guide), one rocketfor another. Cannon artillery never dreamed of such a rate of fire - one MLRS battery is capable of replacing several artillery ones in terms of firepower per minute

M270 in live fire exercises

Cpl Jamie Peters RLC

  • Having fired back, the battery can quickly curl up and leave the position - thanks to this, even the most advanced means of counter-battery combat will not make it possible to effectively respond

The Pentagon, having learned about such possibilities, was interrified. The United States was aware of its superiority over the USSR in the navy and air force, but it turned out that in the land component everything was much less rosy, and the Soviet MLRS were one of the main reasons to worry. It was impossible to come up with any countermeasures and there was only one thing left to do - make your own MLRS, or, as they are called in English -MLRS.

M270became the first and only system of suchkind, she had only 12 guides with a caliber of 227 mm in two packages. After a major modernization in the early 2000s, the M142, now known as the Haymars, was added to the M270.

The installation does not need a specialized charging machine, like Russian counterparts, the calculation on its own simply changes the empty package to a charged one

M142- this is a lightweight version for 6launcher guides (one package) on a tractor chassis, it was created to equip the Marine Corps and rapid deployment units. That is why it is convenient for air transport and action in dynamic combat clashes.

Today, Ukraine receives both modifications: in the American, British and German versions (possibly also from Norway) - 12-15 M270 launchers and up to 25 M142 launchers.

The difference between American MLRS and Russian

Without going into too much detail, the main thingthe difference between American MLRS and Russian ones is the GMLRS complex. This is an upgrade package for systems already known to us, involving the pumping of installations with a new digital hardware complex and the modernization of missiles.

"Hymars", in case you haven't seen it yet

Therefore, one should distinguish between MLRS - classicalMLRS with unguided rockets (M26 and M28), and GMLRS - a tactical missile system capable of hitting targets with high accuracy at distances of 60 - 92 km (depending on the missile and type of warhead). New missiles using GPS are able to operate with a minimum CEP (circular probable deviation) of 7 meters in diameter at extreme distances.

And the hardware complex also facilitates the work of calculation- you can fire almost immediately after stopping. Neither leveling (alignment relative to the position on the ground), nor topographic and geodetic preparation is needed, everything is done automatically by the computer. All you need is target coordinates.

New missiles are much more expensive due toan inertial navigation system, as well as an improved warhead with increased power, reliability of operation and extended storage periods. In total, about 100,000 of them were produced.

This decision was first dictatedlogistics and economic issues, because the main disadvantage of the MLRS is the high consumption of ammunition, and the transportation and loading / unloading of such missiles is complicated by the dimensions. Simply put, too much transport, personnel and space in tactical depth warehouses are eaten.

In addition, with area coverage of targets, many"useful" load goes "in milk" (at a cost of tens and hundreds of thousands of different money). The new missile, being much more expensive than the analogue of the previous generation, ultimately saves money when 1-3 missiles can solve an issue that used to take 6-12. In addition, the low accuracy of the old missiles reduced the distance of effective fire - beyond the range of 40 km, if they did fly, then it is difficult to expect to get somewhere.

And in the end it created a weapon that, while maintainingformally, the status of the MLRS is devoid of the main distinguishing feature of such systems in the USSR - areal destruction. Now these are high-precision weapons, tactical surface-to-surface missiles.

M270 in action

What about Russian counterparts

The modernization of MLRS systems unfolded with usMinister Serdyukov, on the basis of the Grad and Smerch complex (long-range super-heavy MLRS). The Tornado-S and Tornado-G systems (Smerch and Grad, respectively), with almost complete external resemblance to their predecessors, differ radically - only the efficiency is 15 times higher, according to experts.

In essence, this is the same pumping of the MLRS asGMLRS, only due to a different technical base, which allows you to receive both light regimental short-range Tornado-G, up to 30-40 km range, and super-heavy Tornado-S, with a range of up to 120 km. Thus, Tornado-S has a range similar to tactical missile systems such as Tochka-U, differing in a lighter missile, but also in a greater ability to hit multiple targets.

firing Tornado-G

According to some data, in 2020 the distanceTornado-S was able to increase to 200 km, but, as usual, the slowness of the Russian military-industrial complex fails - there is no information about the number of more than 20 Tornado-S complexes. That is, the Russian army today has fewer complexes that can compete with the "himars" than they were sent to Ukraine. But they still complain that it is not enough.